The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education
Open accessAbstract
The shortage of graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), has led to numerous attempts to increase students' interest in STEM.One emerging approach that has the potential to improve students' motivation for STEM is integrated STEM education.Nonetheless, the implementation of this new instructional strategy is not straightforward due to the lack of consensus about instructional practices in integrated STEM.This paper contributes to this challenge by providing a well-defined framework for instructional practices in integrated STEM in secondary education, based on the results of a systematic review of existing literature.The framework contains five key principles: integration of STEM content, problem-centered learning, inquiry-based learning, design-based learning and cooperative learning.The proposed framework has several benefits, including its applicability in the classroom and the possibility to describe integrated STEM on multiple dimensions.Nonetheless, further research is necessary to investigate the effects of integrated STEM on students' cognitive and affective learning outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993) · Performance Improvement Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x · Cited by 1,410
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare
Ganeshkumar, P., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2013) · Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care · doi:10.4103/2249-4863.109934 · Cited by 743
Doust, J. A., Pietrzak, E., Sanders, S., & Glasziou, P. P. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.011 · Cited by 106
Cited by
What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature
Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21522 · Cited by 566
Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications
Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6 · Cited by 494
Evidence of STEM Enactment Effectiveness in Asian Student Learning Outcomes
Wahono, B., Lin, P.-L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2020) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-020-00236-1 · Cited by 286
A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality in STEM Education
Ajit, G. (2021) · Studies of Applied Economics · doi:10.25115/eea.v39i1.4280 · Cited by 65
Heuristic Cues for Meta-Reasoning Judgments: Review and Methodology
Ackerman, R. (2019) · Psihologijske teme · doi:10.31820/pt.28.1.1 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F.
- Venue
- European Journal of STEM Education
- Publisher
- Lectito BV
- Published
- 2018-05-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2468-1954 (ISSN-L)
- 2468-4368
- OpenAlex
- W2801496370
- Cited by
- 542
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 17.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
